193,963 research outputs found
Screening of energy efficient technologies for industrial buildings' retrofit
This chapter discusses screening of energy efficient technologies for industrial buildings' retrofit
Toward sustainable data centers: a comprehensive energy management strategy
Data centers are major contributors to the emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and this contribution is expected to increase in the following years. This has encouraged the development of techniques to reduce the energy consumption and the environmental footprint of data centers. Whereas some of these techniques have succeeded to reduce the energy consumption of the hardware equipment of data centers (including IT, cooling, and power supply systems), we claim that sustainable data centers will be only possible if the problem is faced by means of a holistic approach that includes not only the aforementioned techniques but also intelligent and unifying solutions that enable a synergistic and energy-aware management of data centers.
In this paper, we propose a comprehensive strategy to reduce the carbon footprint of data centers that uses the energy as a driver of their management procedures. In addition, we present a holistic management architecture for sustainable data centers that implements the aforementioned strategy, and we propose design guidelines to accomplish each step of the proposed strategy, referring to related achievements and enumerating the main challenges that must be still solved.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft
Recommended from our members
Lessons Learned and Next Steps in Energy Efficiency Measurement and Attribution: Energy Savings, Net to Gross, Non-Energy Benefits, and Persistence of Energy Efficiency Behavior
This white paper examines four topics addressing evaluation, measurement, and attribution of direct and indirect effects to energy efficiency and behavioral programs: Estimates of program savings (gross); Net savings derivation through free ridership / net to gross analyses; Indirect non-energy benefits / impacts (e.g., comfort, convenience, emissions, jobs); and, Persistence of savings
Recommended from our members
System-level key performance indicators for building performance evaluation
Quantifying building energy performance through the development and use of key performance indicators (KPIs) is an essential step in achieving energy saving goals in both new and existing buildings. Current methods used to evaluate improvements, however, are not well represented at the system-level (e.g., lighting, plug-loads, HVAC, service water heating). Instead, they are typically only either measured at the whole building level (e.g., energy use intensity) or at the equipment level (e.g., chiller efficiency coefficient of performance (COP)) with limited insights for benchmarking and diagnosing deviations in performance of aggregated equipment that delivers a specific service to a building (e.g., space heating, lighting). The increasing installation of sensors and meters in buildings makes the evaluation of building performance at the system level more feasible through improved data collection. Leveraging this opportunity, this study introduces a set of system-level KPIs, which cover four major end-use systems in buildings: lighting, MELs (Miscellaneous Electric Loads, aka plug loads), HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning), and SWH (service water heating), and their eleven subsystems. The system KPIs are formulated in a new context to represent various types of performance, including energy use, peak demand, load shape, occupant thermal comfort and visual comfort, ventilation, and water use. This paper also presents a database of system KPIs using the EnergyPlus simulation results of 16 USDOE prototype commercial building models across four vintages and five climate zones. These system KPIs, although originally developed for office buildings, can be applied to other building types with some adjustment or extension. Potential applications of system KPIs for system performance benchmarking and diagnostics, code compliance, and measurement and verification are discussed
Systematic Review of Supported Housing Literature 1993 – 2008
Supported housing for individuals with severe mental illness strives to provide the services necessary to place and keep individuals in independent housing that is integrated into the community and in which the consumer has choice and control over his or her services and supports. Supported housing can be contrasted to an earlier model called the “linear residential approach” in which individuals are moved from the most restrictive settings (e.g., inpatient settings) through a series of more independent settings (e.g., group homes, supervised apartments) and then finally to independent housing. This approach has been criticized as punishing the client due to frequent moves, and as being less likely to result in independent housing. In the supported housing model (Anthony & Blanch, 1988) consumers have choice and control over their living environment, their treatment, and supports (e.g., case management, mental health and substance abuse services). Supports are flexible and faded in and out depending on needs.
Results of this systematic review of supported housing suggest that there are several well-controlled studies of supported housing and several studies conducted with less rigorous designs. Overall, our synthesis suggests that supported housing can improve the living situation of individuals who are psychiatrically disabled, homeless and with substance abuse problems. Results show that supported housing can help people stay in apartments or homes up to about 80% of the time over an extended period. These results are contrary to concerns expressed by proponents of the linear residential model and housing models that espoused more restrictive environments.
Results also show that housing subsidies or vouchers are helpful in getting and keeping individuals housed. Housing services appear to be cost effective and to reduce the costs of other social and clinical services. In order to be most effective, intensive case management services (rather than traditional case management) are needed and will generally lead to better housing outcomes. Having access to affordable housing and having a service system that is well-integrated is also important. Providing a person with supported housing reduces the likelihood that they will be re-hospitalized, although supported housing does not always lead to reduced psychiatric symptoms. Supported housing can improve clients’ quality of life and satisfaction with their living situation. Providing supported housing options that are of decent quality is important in order to keep people housed and satisfied with their housing.
In addition, rapid entry into housing, with the provision of choices is critical. Program and clinical supports may be able to mitigate the social isolation that has sometimes been associated with supported housing.National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Grant # (H133A050006
- …